If Frostbite 2 doesn't run on the Wii U, then it would have been really surprising if Frosbite 3 did. But I'm not sure if Wii U owners are interested in BF 4 or Dragon Age 3 (game using FB 3) anyway. Or if they are, never intended to play them on that system.

They use it to build a console base off a specific market believing it would drive users to their new console. The specific market I'm referring to is the tablet market. Sadly it didn't have the effect they thought it. -- They went from "Hey here's something for the whole family to enjoy" to "Hey here's something for you to enjoy" -- They should have just made a wii2. Increase the specs to make the console more future-proof and pleasing to third party developers. Kept the motion gaming for the causal crowd. Possibly redefine the controller and motion gaming mechanics. Not only that but kept core games controller only. The tablet could've still been available for those who want it.

Nintendo spent most of the money they earned from Wii days on numerous free for all Orgies, high class prostitutes with huge tits and getting high every weekend. The left over from all that sodomy went to developing the Wii U. How ironic isn't it. They've been Cum-drained as a company.

Because it's with the Wii U in particular that people insist that it is not a generation eight console based solely on its specifications. Not even the Wii received that sort of treatment and its specs were comparable to an original Xbox, perhaps even lower.

@PopRock359 People don't pretend the Wii U isn't a generation 8 console, in fact most people probably don't even know about the specific console generations. When people say the Wii U isn't next gen its because it came out 7 years after a console cycle started and is only marginally better than those consoles, if not worse in some aspects.

The Wii U is TECHNICALLY next gen in terms of its release time frame; but in comparison to the Xbox 360 and PS3 specs it's laughable to label the Wii U as next gen...especially with what we know about the PS4.

I get that it might be frustrating to hear so many disregard the Wii U by not saying it's next gen, but instead of arguing semantics just let it go.

@colinzeal that information was given out by a person on a forum who had no expertise other than google, it probably came down to a lack of optimization to the gpgpu. From a couple interviews i've heard the 1gb ram is not a bottleneck for the wii u, even if it could have been more.

@Thirty3Three- I agree that the term has changed since the Wii came out. Before then, developers would just say next gen. Wii is what caused developers to coin the term "High end next gen" ie when they announced Bioshock, they stated for "all High end next gen systems" ie they now needed to re-state what Next Gen exactly was.

Regardless of what its called, it means NOTHING for the Wii U, its a pretty stupid agrument and just makes anyone who supports Wii U look even dumber.

Wii is current gen yes? WTF DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING IF Mass Effect, Assassain's Creed, GTA, Red Dead, LA Noire, Bioshock, Battlefield. Dead Space etc all skipped the system? So.....because its "called" current gen or it "released" around the same time it some how mains it will get the same games?

So.....if it didn't happen for the Wii....its somehow going to happen with the Wii U? LMFAO! Now....100 million units couldn't make that reality happen. What needs to be coined here is a term known as "HIGH END NEXT GEN" as in "ONLY PC PS4 and 720" Now this is not me thats dubbed this label, you can think the rest of the gaming industry for doing that.

When we are talking about Next gen as in NEW LOOKING GAMES and NEW AI FEATURES....we are talking about "HIGH END NEXT GEN" (say it with me) "HIGH END NEXT GEN".

Its funny cause I actually agreed with you. (I still do on some level) but No...the Wii U is next gen by name only. The Nextbox will be a high end next gen system with PC and PS4. Gaming didn't let Wii's dated tech hold it back from making amazing games, I don't see why they will let Wii U.

all this means is that nintendo has yet again failed to appeal to a larger audience which is what they were aiming for with the wiiU and games like bayonetta2 and zombie U. looks like they need to rethink their strategy and cater to their nintendo fans with their tried and trusted titles like zelda, xeno blade and whatever it is nintendo fans are so fond of. the real crisis is if they fail in that respect too. personally i really hate that the halfhearted attempts by using old titles and sticking a "U" at the end like super mario U its as if they are not even trying anymore. not all doom and gloom just yet however

Really? Is this really bad news for Nintendo? Think about it. Nintendo made a system before with a lack of 3rd party support when they made the Wii. Now if they wanted those type of games, why wouldn't they just make a system that was truly "high end"?

Its cause they don't want to. THINK ABOUT IT! Why should Nintendo as a publisher waste money making a beast system for games that will and have sold better on Sony and MS systems? I'm sorry but what Nintendo did with the Wii wasn't some sort of mistake. They knew VERY DAMN WELL WHAT THEY WHERE DOING! You guys do understand that Nintendo is purposely getting there crowd not get use to certain IP's? They don't want 3rd party support in that respect, they want 3rd parties to make "default exclusives" by making a weak system, they are now avoiding ports from PS4 and 720.

ie LESS COMPETITION FOR NINTENDO'S OWN IP's. Genius.

No mistake was made with the Wii U, its exactly what Nintendo wanted. Many of you have stated on here a whole lot "I'm buying it for Nintendo games" that is the attitude they want to hear. So your money when to ONLY Nintendo for the system clearly and your games are ONLY Nintendo games too? Sounds so bad for Nintendo. LOL!

Smells of EA stink lies and influence. Hmmm, so Crytek Engine 3 runs on Wii U (Shadow of the Eternals using this engine and will be for PC/WiiU) and Frostbite 3 can run on Xbox360/PS3 but cannot run on Wii U. It sure smells like a lie.

unless they wanna admit how inferior of an engine Frostbite 3. i mean, why would CryEngine 3 run on Wii U; or Unreal Engine 3 (and some 4), or any of Ubisoft's game engine (like that of Watch_Dogs) run on Wii U, but they can't make FB3 work on it?

at least CryTek had the balls to admit that the reason they won't bring Crysis 3 in the Wii U (albeit admitting that they were able to run Crysis3 in it) is because EA doesn't want to publish it for the Nintendo console.

Then no. I won't be surprised if they can't get any of the new star wars games to run either...Or any of their games when it comes to EA....since EA is still butthurtt about no origins. Although, Had Nintendo went through, I bet EA would be singing on top of a mountain about how fantastic the Wiiu is, just like they did when it was announced.

I am pretty sure if Nintendo sales skyrockected over the next year or two then sure Frostbite 3 would be on WiiU almost instantly. EA though WiiU would sell faster than the Wii and it didn't give them gold with Mass Effect 3, and Need for Speed U on WiiU. Which mind you Frostbite 2 runs fine with Need for Speed U. An EA game most are ignoring in thinking about this.

You believe this? The Frostbite engine, 2 or 3, is not doing anywhere near as much as the Crytek engine 3 and that runs on the Wii U with no issues. Heck, even UE4 can run on the Wii U to some degree. The devs said it.

The reason it doesn't run on the Wii U is because they didn't make it run on the Wii U. If they stopped after a few test then that means they didn't try to optimize, debug, or recode anything. You can't put a program on a completely different architecture than it was built for an it work perfectly with no effort.

Of course most people don't even care about that. All they care is that they can use this as more fodder to bash Nitnendo. Reality and logic always take a seat when its that time.

The Dead Island devs tried to make that claim as well but the game engine dev stepped in and said it worked just fine. Anyone who says a game engine that runs on the PS3/360 can't run "better" on the Wii U is lying. If it doesn't work, that means they didn't want it to.

Another case of an engine designer or developer, making a lie the truth.

Says: "Nintendo WiiU can't run this engine. Thinks: ("Because we did not design it too. hahahaha!"

AND

Says: "Nintendo fans don't buy our games or these types of games." Thinks: ("I think it is because of all of the crappy test games we make for Nintendo consoles. 'Dead Space' on rails haha! And maybe it is because they bought another console while they were waiting for us to release our game on their Nintendo console.")

I hate when people say Nintendo fans don't care about game a or game b, how can someone say that when Nintendo gamers are gamers just like Sony, PC and Microsoft gamers. The fact that companies are pulling away from the Wii u only 6 months in, is disappointing because a section of gamers are being ignored just because they like Nintendo.

They were saying that when they tested Frostbite 2 on Wii U hardware,, which already ran on PS3 and 360 (it's what runs BF3), they were not impressed. They never even attempted to port frostbite 3. In other words, it didn't even do as good as PS3 and 360 at running their last engine, so they didn't even bother with the new one. It likely had to do with CPU limitations since by all indications Wii U has a more powerful GPU.

No, its not. It never is. "This is just EA". You can stick the words in quotation up whenever something involving them or one of their subsidiaries pop up and you will have the opinion of the majority of Wii U owners. There is no love lost, for there would have to be some to begin with.

No Wii U owner expects anything from EA or their affiliates. We all know they are bitter about Nintendo not bending over for them. They made that clear before launch when they announced they were gimping the games they bring to the console.

Why do so many people, like you and lol_wut, come in hear proposing, hopingly, that we feel some kind of apprehension or sadness about this?

1. Why would we feel bad for not getting a game that we never asked for or expressed any desire to obtain to begin with?

2. Have you seen Wii U owners asking or begging for games made with the Frostbite Engine anywhere, ever?

3. Why would we need this games with this engine when we will have better ones out by then?

All of you apparently want us to be resentful, hard, but I assure you that we do not care in the least.

The thing is you say that, but one thing I learned about 3rd party devs and publishers last gen with the PS3 is that 3rd parties bend over for no-one, in the end Nintendo needs 3rd parties like EA more than they need Nintendo, this is further backed by the fact that they make most of their money of the other consoles and PC.

Otherwise you get a console like the N64 and Gamecube. The reality is Nintendo made a console based on their standards and their criteria, not on what developers want.

Well, it has been reported that sales wise, first party games for Sony and Microsoft accounted for only 6% of total sales. Nintendo first party games accounted for 32%.

Nintendo will always have a strong first party stable and people who will buy these games. But, since the Wii U will not be doing Wii numbers, Nintendo has to get third parties on board if it wants to expand it's user base.

Exactly It's no secret that people buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games, with exception of the Wii that sold purely based on a gimmick.

The thing is, that may sound good on paper, but In reality it's actually a bad thing, because it means the only people that buy Nintendo consoles are Nintendo fans, 3rd party Developers have realised this, which is why Nintendo's 3rd party support has been pretty weak for almost 2 decades now.

Again this shouldn't be a problem if you're a fan of Nintendo, but if you don't care for Nintendo games there consoles offer virtually nothing for you,

again the Gamecube was a system that appealed only to Nintendo fans the exclusives sold well but that didn't translate into a console that barely scraped 20 million units worldwide, reason's being because it lacked the 3rd party support especially towards the end of it's lifetime. Which is why I lol whenever hear someone say "wait till, Mario, Zelda, Metroid.." like that's gonna help much

Nintendo's greatest strength is also their greatest weakness, something their fans will always sidestep.

Well seeing as to how many 3rd party companies went under this generation. I think that both EA and Nintendo need each others business! But lets not be foolish in thinking that EA would survive longer than Nintendo without working with them. The Wii never received any of these franchises that EA are currently withholding from the WiiU,(outside of Tiger Woods, Fifa and Madden which is more of a indicator that this is behind Origin) but Nintendo still managed ok. Once they work out whatever their differences are about the whole Origin failure, then I'm guessing that a miracle would be performed and all EA funded engines will suddenly work on WiiU... The damage will probably be beyond repair at that point though.

It could run Cryengine 3 almost flawlessly and the Crysis 3 port was near completion but got cancelled by EA. This is likely due to the whole 'Nintendo not running Origin for their online service like Ea wanted them to' thing. Crysis 3 for Wii U was up and running, but it was not meant to be. Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli explained to VentureBeat that a lack of Electronic Arts-Nintendo business drive ultimately killed the project.

"We did have Crysis 3 running on the Wii U," Yerli said. "We were very close to launching it. But there was a lack of business support between Nintendo and EA on that. Since we as a company couldn’t launch on the Wii U ourselves--we don’t have a publishing license--Crysis 3 on Wii U had to die." http://www.gamespot.com/new...

Anybody can tell that cancelling an almost finished and well-running game is just pissing funds down the drain. EA was mad about something and Nintendo refusing to use origin, and subsequently handing over control of the online services to EA, is likely the reason.

They don't care if the Wii U fails or not. It's just business for them.

The reason that the PS3 and 360 are getting BF4 is because Frostbite already runs on the consoles and because they each have a large customer base.

The reason the PS4 and XBox 8 are going to get Frostbite 3 is because they both similar in power and they both have the same 8 core CPUs. And because Playstation and XBox have a reputation for adult games/mature themes and for shooters.

What financial incentive is there to port Frostbite 3 to the Wii U? If you were a Battlefield or COD fan last gen would you have bought a Wii as your only console? No. You'd have bought it for family fun or Mario and Zelda. Nintendo are courting the same audience as they did last gen buy making a next gen console with internal components similar to current gen tech. So you're probably thinking. Why not have a PS3, 360, WiiU version? The reason is that PS3 and 360 are known consoles. DICE have been working on them a whole generation. Frostbite 2 already works on them. Wii U doesn't have the userbase of the current gen consoles and will Battlefield even sell on a Nintendo console? Porting a game is expensive. Are Dice going to port a game to a console with no userbase and where shooters aren't that popular? It's a business decision, nothing more. No spite. No pettiness.

That makes sense, but it also doesn't make sense to cancel an almost finished port after all that work and money was put into it and then don't even try to make anything but the bare basics for a system while claiming support. There's clearly something between Nintendo and EA, and considering that Acitvision seems to have no problem with them and EA's behavior general behavior, I have little doubt who started this.

Do you really think that if Wii Us started flying off the shelves and got a massive FPS fan following EA would ignore that? It all comes down to money.

You're probably wondering why a game would get canned if it was mostly built. And the sad fact is that licencing, printing discs, marketing all cost far more that actually building the game. Losing all the money it cost to port the game is bad for a developer, but the money lost on a fully licenced marketed game that doesn't sell is worse. EA have made an executive decision and have picked what they think is the lesser of two evils. 1) Lose some money on a mostly developed game. Or 2) Finish the game, print all the discs, pay all the nintendo licensing, server costs and then have a game that doesn't sell on that console? At which point you've lost even more money.

EDIT: I reckon DICE built the Wii U version, but EA told them to can it because they didn't want to spend the money licencing and marketing it, because they didn't think it would sell. Then they had to come up with a statement to the public why they wouldn't bring it out on the Wii U.

Wii U not being powerful enough is believable and a good excuse.

Have you ever seen that chart about how the cost of a game is divided up. I'll post if I can find the link. It's pretty interesting.